Skip to main content

High Public Debts, High Private Debts and Right Politics

High public debts mean the government borrows and owes people’s money, in particular CPF members. The government says we do not have net debt and our assets are well in excess of liabilities. #

Then, why should we worry?  Investment risks and returns have to be considered.  This is the same things and same warning that we receive for high private debts. MAS and ministers are warning Singaporeans about the danger of property crash and the possible higher interest rate.

The government says we should not worry about internal debts as Singapore does not borrow money in the international markets, like other countries.   Is this true? Foreign debts are more critical than internal (domestic) debts. This is like saying you borrow money from your parents, brothers, sisters, uncles or aunties and you have no worry.  These relatives will not chase you for money.   This must be a wonderfully world! Or perhaps, you have a sugar daddy!

So, according to MAS, we should not worry so much about the internal debts as outsiders will not chase us for money like the loan sharks.  Is the government saying CPF members will not chase and cannot chase them for money? CPF members are sugar daddies too!

There is always a debate how big is our reserve and its actual values. It is so complicated that it would need 50 man-years to calculate. This was first known in the 1990s. By now, with Asian financial crisis, world financial crisis and increasing complexity and sophistication of world financial markets, it may now need 100 years to produce the reserve figure.  

Internal debts have no risk?

Just look at this classic case, the government issues S$ bonds and CPF Board buys the S$ bond. CPF Board needs to pay interest 2.5% or 4% per year to members. The government takes away the CPF money and asks Temasek and GIC to invest. Of course, they have to invest all over the world to make higher returns so that CPF board is able to pay back the principals and interests to members. 

The problem is there are risks involved be it investment risks for bad decisions or foreign exchange risks.  Another risk is putting more money into the reserve and the investment may not necessary yield more positive returns. 

The recent announced Temasek Review shows an increasing shareholder equity but with a stagnant net profits to equity holders. Who are the equity holders, the government and behind the government the people of Singapore. In the past 10 years, we are putting more money as equity in Temasek but we see stagnant return of profits. 

Temasek Holdings has increasing shareholder equity and stagnant net profits.

You can present the above (same) statistics in the following way:

Upward movement of shareholder equity and a straight line movement of profit


The blue line shows the shareholder equity and the red line shows the profit for equity holder from 2004 to 2103.  If this trend continues, whatever amount of equity the government injects into Temasek Holdings, the profit will be a straight line around S$11 billion plus and minus.     

As a main source of internal debts and government borrowings, CPF members will have to worry whether they can continue to play the sugar daddies. Just like the private debts, the banks will check on you.  Why are you borrowing more money and still paying the same installment amount? Needless to say, all your relatives are getting worry, worry about the internal and domestic debts.

Of course, banks will do the opposite – cut your borrowings and ask for early payments.   Banks are not sugar daddies. Then you tell the banks my business portfolio is getting bigger and bigger, like what Temasek said from S$ 354 million in 1974 to S$215 billion in 2013.  Then the banks comments that you are using my money to balloon your portfolio of which there are even bigger, higher and more complicated risks.  You may have a lot of inventory, a lot of account receivables, and a lot of doubtful debts……..The banks finally say they are unable to assess the assets values and the risks involved.

Even professionals like banks have difficulties in assessing the risks and the values, how about relatives who give private loans to the family borrowers.  This is the situation of the CPF members. Many CPF members do not have financial knowledge, not to mention the sophisticated modern and advanced international finance.

CPF members are forced to be sugar daddies by law. And there is only one hope that the government is doing the right thing.  Same thing for our reserve, Singaporeans have to trust the government to do the right thing.

Right politics

Right thing means right politics.

The right politics unfortunately is to make people trust the institutions handling CPF monies and the reserve.  Right politics and right economics are how to convince people and gain public confidence in the administration of public money – CPF and reserve.

However, to the PAP, right politics is to continue giving more equity to them to invest without questions, just like the sugar daddies.  

Unfortunately, majority of Singaporeans are not rich enough to be sugar daddies.  The reality of right politics to them is to have an open, transparent, fair and equal disclosure of public finance.   This is the basic principle of right politics.

If citizens do not trust you anymore, then the answer is simple – wrong politics. 

So, who is at the right side of the right politics – the PAP government or the people?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...